Accuracy of VO2 estimation according to the widely used Krakau formula for the prediction of cardiac output.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q4 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Herz Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-13 DOI:10.1007/s00059-023-05196-0
Theresa Reiter, Julia Kerzner, Georg Fette, Stefan Frantz, Wolfram Voelker, Georg Ertl, Wolfgang Bauer, Caroline Morbach, Stefan Störk, Gülmisal Güder
{"title":"Accuracy of VO<sub>2</sub> estimation according to the widely used Krakau formula for the prediction of cardiac output.","authors":"Theresa Reiter, Julia Kerzner, Georg Fette, Stefan Frantz, Wolfram Voelker, Georg Ertl, Wolfgang Bauer, Caroline Morbach, Stefan Störk, Gülmisal Güder","doi":"10.1007/s00059-023-05196-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Invasive cardiac output (CO) is measured with the thermodilution (TD) or the indirect Fick method (iFM) in right heart catheterization (RHC). The iFM estimates CO using approximation formulas for oxygen consumption ([Formula: see text]O<sub>2</sub>), but there are significant discrepancies (> 20%) between both methods. Although regularly applied, the formula proposed by Krakau has not been validated. We compared the CO discrepancies between the Krakau formula with the reference (TD) and three established formulas and investigated whether alterations assessed in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) determined the extent of the deviations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study included 188 patients aged 63 ± 14 years (30% women) receiving both CMR and RHC. The CO was measured with TD or with the iFM using the formulas by Krakau, LaFarge, Dehmer, and Bergstra for [Formula: see text]O2 estimation (iFM-K/-L/-D/-B). Percentage errors were calculated as twice the standard deviation of the difference between two CO methods divided by their means; a cut-off of < 30% was regarded as acceptable. The iFM and TD-derived CO ratio was built, and deviations > 20% were counted. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify determinants of a deviation of > 20%.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The TD-derived CO (5.5 ± 1.7 L/min) was significantly different from all iFM (K: 4.8 ± 1.6, L: 4.3 ± 1.6; D: 4.8 ± 1.5 L/min; B: 5.4 ± 1.8 L/min all p < 0.05). The iFM-K-CO differed from all methods (p < 0.001) except iFM‑D (p = 0.19). Percentage errors between TD-CO and iFM-K/-L/-D/-B were all beyond the acceptance limit (44/45/44/43%), while percentage errors between iFM‑K and other iFM were all < 16%. None of the parameters measured in CMR was predictive of a discrepancy of > 20% between both methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Krakau formula was comparable to other iFM in estimating CO levels, but none showed satisfactory agreement with the TD method. Improved derivation cohorts for [Formula: see text]O<sub>2</sub> estimation are needed that better reflect today's patients undergoing RHC.</p>","PeriodicalId":12863,"journal":{"name":"Herz","volume":" ","pages":"50-59"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10830659/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Herz","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00059-023-05196-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Invasive cardiac output (CO) is measured with the thermodilution (TD) or the indirect Fick method (iFM) in right heart catheterization (RHC). The iFM estimates CO using approximation formulas for oxygen consumption ([Formula: see text]O2), but there are significant discrepancies (> 20%) between both methods. Although regularly applied, the formula proposed by Krakau has not been validated. We compared the CO discrepancies between the Krakau formula with the reference (TD) and three established formulas and investigated whether alterations assessed in cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) determined the extent of the deviations.

Methods: This retrospective study included 188 patients aged 63 ± 14 years (30% women) receiving both CMR and RHC. The CO was measured with TD or with the iFM using the formulas by Krakau, LaFarge, Dehmer, and Bergstra for [Formula: see text]O2 estimation (iFM-K/-L/-D/-B). Percentage errors were calculated as twice the standard deviation of the difference between two CO methods divided by their means; a cut-off of < 30% was regarded as acceptable. The iFM and TD-derived CO ratio was built, and deviations > 20% were counted. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify determinants of a deviation of > 20%.

Results: The TD-derived CO (5.5 ± 1.7 L/min) was significantly different from all iFM (K: 4.8 ± 1.6, L: 4.3 ± 1.6; D: 4.8 ± 1.5 L/min; B: 5.4 ± 1.8 L/min all p < 0.05). The iFM-K-CO differed from all methods (p < 0.001) except iFM‑D (p = 0.19). Percentage errors between TD-CO and iFM-K/-L/-D/-B were all beyond the acceptance limit (44/45/44/43%), while percentage errors between iFM‑K and other iFM were all < 16%. None of the parameters measured in CMR was predictive of a discrepancy of > 20% between both methods.

Conclusion: The Krakau formula was comparable to other iFM in estimating CO levels, but none showed satisfactory agreement with the TD method. Improved derivation cohorts for [Formula: see text]O2 estimation are needed that better reflect today's patients undergoing RHC.

Abstract Image

根据广泛使用的克拉考公式预测心输出量的 VO2 估计值的准确性。
背景:在右心导管检查(RHC)中,采用热稀释法(TD)或间接菲克法(iFM)测量有创心输出量(CO)。iFM 使用耗氧量近似公式([公式:见正文]O2)估算 CO,但两种方法之间存在显著差异(> 20%)。Krakau 提出的公式虽然经常使用,但尚未得到验证。我们比较了 Krakau 公式与参考公式(TD)和三种成熟公式之间的 CO 差异,并研究了心脏磁共振成像(CMR)评估的改变是否决定了偏差的程度:这项回顾性研究包括188名同时接受CMR和RHC检查的患者,年龄为63±14岁(30%为女性)。一氧化碳用 TD 或 iFM 测量,采用 Krakau、LaFarge、Dehmer 和 Bergstra [公式:见正文]O2 估算公式 (iFM-K/-L/-D/-B)。误差百分比的计算方法为两种 CO 方法之间差异的标准偏差的两倍除以它们的平均值;误差百分比以 20% 为界限。进行逻辑回归分析以确定偏差大于 20% 的决定因素:结果:TD 衍生 CO(5.5±1.7 升/分钟)与所有 iFM(K:4.8±1.6;L:4.3±1.6;D:4.8±1.5 升/分钟;B:5.4±1.8 升/分钟)有显著差异,两种方法的偏差均为 20%:结论:克拉考公式在估计一氧化碳水平方面与其他 iFM 方法不相上下,但与 TD 方法的一致性均不令人满意。需要改进[公式:见正文]O2 估算的推导队列,以更好地反映当今接受 RHC 治疗的患者的情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Herz
Herz 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
61
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Herz is the high-level journal for further education for all physicians interested in cardiology. The individual issues of the journal each deal with specific topics and comprise review articles in English and German written by competent and esteemed authors. They provide up-to-date and comprehensive information concerning the speciality dealt with in the issue. Due to the fact that all relevant aspects of the pertinent topic of an issue are considered, an overview of the current status and progress in cardiology is presented. Reviews and original articles round off the spectrum of information provided.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信